In Response to Re: What does everyone think of the Calvin Johnson play? : I don't even know how many times this was replay reviewed last year, but it came up frequently. They did not review it in the off-season - or it was on a list and they decided to ignore it.Posted by EnochRoot

In Response to Re: What does everyone think of the Calvin Johnson play? : The rule is written to take away interpretation. Don't come up with the ball then you didn't have possession. It isn't vague. It has been reviewed many times over the last few seasons.Posted by EnochRoot

It seems to me that the "process of going to the ground" certainly is vague.

When is it over?

I've been asking this question for a week and can't seem to get an answer from anyone who is defending this rule.

In Response to Re: What does everyone think of the Calvin Johnson play? : It seems to me that the "process of going to the ground" certainly is vague. When is it over? I've been asking this question for a week and can't seem to get an answer from anyone who is defending this rule. If he's not down when he hits the ground, when is he down?Posted by p-mike

They apparently feel like they have to MicroManage the refs on these calls. It's not a huge deal to me but it seems to defy common sense.

In Response to Re: What does everyone think of the Calvin Johnson play? : It seems to me that the "process of going to the ground" certainly is vague. When is it over? I've been asking this question for a week and can't seem to get an answer from anyone who is defending this rule. If he's not down when he hits the ground, when is he down?Posted by p-mike

In Response to Re: What does everyone think of the Calvin Johnson play? : I was thinking this particular play would draw it to their attention.Posted by ewhite1065

The big one last year was the Raiders play, I think. It was also early in the season and it went against a team that had no shot at the playoffs. I get the impression that unless it happens to the Colts in the second half of the season (It won't because if it isn't a catch, it will be pass interference.), it won't be brought up again.

In Response to Re: What does everyone think of the Calvin Johnson play? : The big one last year was the Raiders play, I think. It was also early in the season and it went against a team that had no shot at the playoffs. I get the impression that unless it happens to the Colts in the second half of the season (It won't because if it isn't a catch, it will be pass interference.), it won't be brought up again. Posted by EnochRoot

You Know..I said the same thing earlier on . If it happens to the Colts All Manning has to do is give them the Look. Polian will do the rest.

In Response to Re: What does everyone think of the Calvin Johnson play? : The big one last year was the Raiders play, I think. It was also early in the season and it went against a team that had no shot at the playoffs. I get the impression that unless it happens to the Colts in the second half of the season (It won't because if it isn't a catch, it will be pass interference.), it won't be brought up again. Posted by EnochRoot

You know what's funny about this, Root?

This would appear to be uniquely Patriot-friendly take, as the Colts have been the Pats de-facto rival for many years, but the notion that the league only takes action in deference to the Colts has actually been brought up on several national threads -- not to meniton the KFAN board here in Minneapolis -- in discussions of this particular play.

In Response to Re: What does everyone think of the Calvin Johnson play? : It seems to me that the "process of going to the ground" certainly is vague. When is it over? I've been asking this question for a week and can't seem to get an answer from anyone who is defending this rule. If he's not down when he hits the ground, when is he down?Posted by p-mike

I honestly don't see why this is an issue or why "process of going to the ground" seems vague to you. Would it make more sense if they said "falling"?

You seem to want to confuse "being down" with "establishing possession".

Establishing possession simply carries through the play. This includes the receiver keeping hold of the ball once he hits the ground if he has not previously established possession (E.G. catch and run). If the ball hits the ground while in his grasp and he doesn't keep control of it, then he doesn't establish possession.

Would you say this was a reception if occurred the exact same way except instead of getting up, he fell on his back, bobbled the ball and it fell out?

In Response to Re: What does everyone think of the Calvin Johnson play? : They apparently feel like they have to MicroManage the refs on these calls. It's not a huge deal to me but it seems to defy common sense.Posted by ewhite1065

I can see that, but look at what happens when they give the refs latitude in interpreting the rules. Everyone starts to say they need to take it away. Go figure.

He caught the ball, He landed and still had it. He turns to get up and the ball comes out. By rule it's incomplete but the rule Sukkkks. I'll be interested to see if the NFL Revisits this rule in the offseason.Posted by ewhite1065

Are you serious? He didn't land until he stopped falling - which was when the ball came out.

In Response to Re: What does everyone think of the Calvin Johnson play? : It seems to me that the "process of going to the ground" certainly is vague. When is it over? I've been asking this question for a week and can't seem to get an answer from anyone who is defending this rule. If he's not down when he hits the ground, when is he down?Posted by p-mike

It's pretty simple. You just look at when the player has stopped falling. Johnson was still falling.